the IRS and AP Scandals

[AmbrosiaWriter]

That's not how -gate works.

I mean, I hate things being labeled 'gate' but even if I AM labeling this, that's not how that works!

Edit: It's... Taxgate. Or APgate. Not Obamagate.

The 'gate' comes after what the scandal's ABOUT. The only way it'd be Obamagate would be if it turned out that someone was secretly Obama.

I know that. You know that.

Apparently someone at the Boston Herald just decided to be "cool" or try to coin a "catchy/clever" title for this.

They failed.

[Panacea]

From what I've heard about the so-called IRS "scandal," I'm not sure that they actually did anything wrong. They noticed a pattern (namely, that there was a large surge in filings for that status, and they noticed that a large number of the bad filings that they were getting were "Tea Party" groups), and followed it. While it looked from the outside that they were trying to discredit Tea Partiers, it was the other way around - the Tea Party groups were jumping on a special status bandwagon that they didn't have a right to claim.

Yes and no. What the IRS did that was wrong was, in response to a deluge of applications that they knew were likely trying to take advantage of the law, was to go after the low hanging fruit of the tea party key word. The IRS is supposed to be non-partisan; they didn't use similar keywords for liberal groups. The complaint that conservative groups were targeted is legit. However, I do not believe politics was the motivation. Rather, it was just easier to target the openly conservative groups because they were easier to spot. The IRS has had a lot of budget cuts, making it easier for tax cheats to cheat.

Again, the real solution to the problem is to fix the tax code. But the Republicans would rather play the victim card and create a conspiracy where none exists than deal with the real problems our country faces.

[Andara Bledin]

But the Republicans would rather play the victim card and create a conspiracy where none exists than deal with the real problems our country faces.

That's been pretty much their MO from the day Obama first took office. They'd rather the entire country burned than compromise, even on measures that they wrote.

[draco664]

Yes and no. What the IRS did that was wrong was,

Like many scandals, it's not the act that pisses everyone off - people make mistakes all the time - it's the coverup.

Consider that the scapegoat Steve Miller wasn't even working as commisioner at the time of the incidents, and Lois Lerner tried claiming the fifth to avoid giving evidence. That *smacks* of a coverup.

However, I do not believe politics was the motivation. Rather, it was just easier to target the openly conservative groups because they were easier to spot. The IRS has had a lot of budget cuts, making it easier for tax cheats to cheat.

I find that reasoning flawed for two main reasons. 1) In over two years no organisation with the words "Tea Party" in the name was given tax exempt status while many with 'progressive' in the title did. 2) Getting that tax exempt status is convoluted, and it's more in line with bureaucratic process to decline than approve an application if the work is too much.

I suspect that anyone on the conservative side of politics will disagree with you, simply because it's their side targeted. Of course, the converse is true - had the IRS attacked liberal groups the same way and the excuse was the funding cuts, I doubt it would fly with liberals either.

[Jaden]

At first, I was outraged about this. Now, I'm not so sure. I think the goal they were trying to achieve was good and the way they went about ti poor, and I'm not so sure politics really played a part. The IRS got an extremely large amount of tax exempt applications during that time, far more than they had before, and they had to make sure that primarily political groups did not receive the exemption, because that's not how the tax exempt status works. Some liberal groups got caught up in this, too, but far fewer. Is it because the IRS was playing partisan bully, or is it because liberal groups tend to not have overtly political names? At this point, I'm leaning towards the latter. Sorry, but if you're called something like "Tea Party Patriots" or whatever, of course you're going to have higher scrutiny placed on you. It's not because you're being discriminated against, it's because you sound a hell of a lot like a political group and might be trying to game the system.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Like many scandals, it's not the act that pisses everyone off - people make mistakes all the time - it's the coverup.

Really?

Don't get me wrong, people don't like coverups (or maybe they do since research tends to the single largest predictor towards believing a conspiracy theory is belief in a different conspiracy), but somehow if the IRS had said "Oh yea, we were targeting conservatives specifically" somehow I'm pretty sure that degree of ethical violation would cause the same degree of angst.

Also, the 5th protects against self incrimination. I'm not sure where this "protecting someone above them" narrative comes from. Take even the most innocuous version if it: "Did someone above you tell you to do X".

I plead the 5th. What I'm actually denying by doing that is motive being established before a trial. Either answer opens up a line of questioning and builds a case. I may very well prefer that if a case get made, it get made in court and not in congress which will absolutely drag something like this out for political reasons to the point I might actually screw up and say something stupid. I might not plead the 5th in a trial where the questions will be more directed towards establishing my guilt. But in an open forum where there's a high probability of going back and forth?

[Andara Bledin]

I find that reasoning flawed for two main reasons. 1) In over two years no organisation with the words "Tea Party" in the name was given tax exempt status while many with 'progressive' in the title did. 2) Getting that tax exempt status is convoluted, and it's more in line with bureaucratic process to decline than approve an application if the work is too much.

Actually, the easiest way to know that reasoning is flawed is that as soon a someone noticed it was happening and said something, the rate of approval for those being targeted went jumped from just a couple per month to suddenly more than 40.

Article at FiveThirtyEight

[Andara Bledin]

I plead the 5th. What I'm actually denying by doing that is motive being established before a trial. Either answer opens up a line of questioning and builds a case.

In criminal cases, all pleading the fifth can ever be used for is possibly allowing for the procurement of warrants. It cannot, in and of itself, be used or considered as a basis for guilt or otherwise.

In a civil case, it can leave a line of testimony uncontested, and that can be used as a basis for making a decision, but not the actual lack of answers themselves.

It's a very tricky thing.

I only know any of this because of the current Prenda case going on, where the prosecution took the 5th when asked questions about whether they actually had the right to bring the suit in the first place. O.o

[s_stabeler]

the Prenda case is actaully an interesting study in how not to act before a judge- basically, they forged someone's signature on the copyright assignment ( that was supposed to be signing on THEIR behalf) and have been evasve at best at details that the judge has asked for. Pleading the fifth was actaully somewhat intelligent- every time they had said something before, it had caused more questions of them.

[draco664]

Sorry, but if you're called something like "Tea Party Patriots" or whatever, of course you're going to have higher scrutiny placed on you. It's not because you're being discriminated against, it's because you sound a hell of a lot like a political group and might be trying to game the system.

But the decision on whether to grant tax-exempt status isn't based on the name of the organisation, it's based on the reams of paper full of questions within the application. Higher scrutiny is one thing, but it is not in dispute that for more than two years, not one org with a conservative associated name was granted tax exempt status.

[Panacea]

Like many scandals, it's not the act that pisses everyone off - people make mistakes all the time - it's the coverup.

Consider that the scapegoat Steve Miller wasn't even working as commisioner at the time of the incidents, and Lois Lerner tried claiming the fifth to avoid giving evidence. That *smacks* of a coverup.

Certainly it does not look good for Lerner. I never said it did. But coverup by whom? For what reason? I find it more credible that Lerner was trying to avoid public embarrassment for herself more than protect anyone else. Pleading the 5th is about SELF incrimination; if there was really evidence of something from higher ups going on Issa would have offered her immunity to testify. He hasn't done that, which means there's no other evidence. That tells me this is more about a fishing expedition than a cover up.

In any case, the FBI is investigating this. I want to hear what they have to say.

I find that reasoning flawed for two main reasons. 1) In over two years no organisation with the words "Tea Party" in the name was given tax exempt status while many with 'progressive' in the title did. 2) Getting that tax exempt status is convoluted, and it's more in line with bureaucratic process to decline than approve an application if the work is too much.

Actually, that's not quite true. It is not true that NO conservative organization with Tea Party in the name got tax exempt status. It's that very few did, and the IRS responded to the news getting out to approving more groups (probably hoping anger would go away, which of course did not work).

You actually don't have to apply for tax exempt status. You can just claim it. But if your organization gets audited, and you're found NOT to be promoting social welfare (the primary objective of a 501(c)4 must be charitable purposes, not politics) then it's a HUGE tax fine, with interest and penalties. So many groups apply anyway to stay on the safe side of the law. The ones who quit in frustration could have continued to make the claim; they didn't understand their rights and that's not the IRS's problem.

I have no doubt that if this had been a conservative president and liberal groups being targeted that the outrage would be the same. Many liberal groups immediately denounced the targeting. I personally am pretty upset about it as well. However, I respect the 5th amendment, and want solid evidence of a cover up before I start pointing fingers.

If I'm right that the cause is just an overworked department suffering major cutbacks to their budgeting, then I'm just as mad at Congress, who created the problem with their political dysfunction and reckless behaviors (and I do mean both sides of the aisle).

Actually, the easiest way to know that reasoning is flawed is that as soon a someone noticed it was happening and said something, the rate of approval for those being targeted went jumped from just a couple per month to suddenly more than 40.

All this proves is the IRS (or rather this one office in Cincinnati) knew what they were doing was wrong, and were trying to cover it up. It doesn't prove anything more nefarious than that.

In criminal cases, all pleading the fifth can ever be used for is possibly allowing for the procurement of warrants. It cannot, in and of itself, be used or considered as a basis for guilt or otherwise.

To issue a warrant, a judge must have probable cause. Pleading the 5th is not probable cause, nor is invoking your Miranda right to keep silent. It doesn't look good, and can cause a prosecutor to dig deeper. Juries are not supposed to view it negatively, but they often do.

In criminal cases, pleading the 5th means you fear your statements might be used against you . . . regardless of whether or not you actually committed a crime. It is easy to twist someones words against them. Allowing people to remain silent means they can't be forced to testify against themselves, either because they have something to hide or because someone wants to twist their words against.

Issa has a very simple solution to Lerner's claim to the 5th. He can grant her immunity. Then if he wants to find out if there are heads higher on the food chain for him to roll, she can provide them.

But if he thinks she waived her right to protect herself from self incrimination because she made a declaration she did nothing wrong, then he's living in a dreamworld. It's well established law that once a suspect starts talking, he can stop at any time. To waive her rights, she either has to sign a statement to that effect or verbally declare it before witnesses.

I only know any of this because of the current Prenda case going on, where the prosecution took the 5th when asked questions about whether they actually had the right to bring the suit in the first place. O.o

There are no prosecutors in a civil case. The party bringing the civil action (a tort) is the plaintiff. Alan Cooper is one of the plaintiffs in the tangled Prenda case, claiming identity theft. Prenda is the defendant; the various lawyers that make up Prenda claimed the 5th Amendment in a show cause hearing in LA (under Judge Otis Wright). Wright was not amused, and in their case claiming the 5th did not help their civil suit . . . but probably saved them from criminal charges. Or at least delayed it (the case is still twisting and playing out). Wright fined them, and referred them for disciplinary action before the Bar. They will probably eventually be disbarred, and that case and others is unwinding their business model.

My guess is Prenda will fall apart with no assets to pay fines, the lawyers might get a slap on the wrist, but they'll be able to move on and create a new legal scheme to make a quick buck.

[Andara Bledin]

My guess is Prenda will fall apart with no assets to pay fines, the lawyers might get a slap on the wrist, but they'll be able to move on and create a new legal scheme to make a quick buck.

With everything going on with that case, I actually find the idea that they'll skate rather unlikely. Where the money went, and if it can be recovered, however...

[Panacea]

With everything going on with that case, I actually find the idea that they'll skate rather unlikely. Where the money went, and if it can be recovered, however...

One of their subsidiaries, AF Holdings, got slapped with a fine. Trouble is they have no assets to pay it. Since the ownership of AF Holdings is murky, how the court is going to get Prenda to pay the fine is equally murky.

I'm not holding my breath.

[Tanasi]

It seems to me that the more information that comes out about the IRS problem the finger is pointing closer and closer to the WH. So far nothing I've heard has mentioned that POTUS knew anything about this but it seems that his COS offered advice on how to handle this mess. If so it's not hard to believe that POTUS might know something. It seems that this problem was known about before the past POTUS election but was kept quiet so it wouldn't effect said election. There was error in believing that because keeping it quiet could have affected the election and it wasn't their decision to make.
With all the knowns, unknowns and speculations floating around I don't think it's too much to appoint a special investigator. Discover it all good and bad.
AFA the tax code goes: It's in governments best interests to keep it complicated and nearly-nonunderstandable. The fair thing would be no deductions at all for anyone. All incomes earned and unearned regardless of source will be treated exactly the same. For incomes above X-amount then you owe Y-percentage of the amount that exceeds X-amount. If you're a citizen of the USA regardless of where you live or how you make your living the same applies. If you're not a citizen and are making your living in the USA we want said percentage of the amount earned in the USA. A tax return of basically half a sheet of paper. Also what I'd like to see is that the above be made as an amendment to the constitution that also nullifies all previous tax laws and Y-percentage can only be changed by amending the constitution, unless there's a congressionally declared national emergency or war then Y-percent can be adjusted no more than .5% to the positive per year.

[Rapscallion]

AFA the tax code goes: It's in governments best interests to keep it complicated and nearly-nonunderstandable. The fair thing would be no deductions at all for anyone. All incomes earned and unearned regardless of source will be treated exactly the same. For incomes above X-amount then you owe Y-percentage of the amount that exceeds X-amount. If you're a citizen of the USA regardless of where you live or how you make your living the same applies. If you're not a citizen and are making your living in the USA we want said percentage of the amount earned in the USA. A tax return of basically half a sheet of paper. Also what I'd like to see is that the above be made as an amendment to the constitution that also nullifies all previous tax laws and Y-percentage can only be changed by amending the constitution, unless there's a congressionally declared national emergency or war then Y-percent can be adjusted no more than .5% to the positive per year.

It's not often you and I agree, and whilst I don't agree fully with what you have here, I fully believe that the whole tax mess should be simplified.

One of the companies we supply on a regular basis was recently in the news over here for paying relatively sod all in taxes, and when people complain to me about it, I tell them that they're not doing anything at all illegal. The laws that allow their tax 'efficiency' is to blame.

Rapscallion